49 On January 10 Caesar crosses the Rubicon and marches on Rome in defiance of the Senate. Pompey leaves for Greece. Caesar dictator fir first time, for eleven days, passes emergency legislation. Caesar in Spain, defeats Pompeians.

48-47 Caesar becomes involved in Egyptian dynastic struggles

48 Caesar consul for second time.Caesar crosses to Greece, defeats Pompey at Pharsalus. Pompey flees to Egypt where he is stabbed to death on landing. Caesar in Egypt. Alexandrine War. Caesar makes Cleopatra queen of Egypt.

47 Caesar dictator for second time in his absence. Caesar defeats King Pharnaces II of Pontus. Caesar returns to Rome, then leaves for Africa.

29 Octavian celebrates his Triumph in Rome, the doors of Temple of Janus are closed, the war officially ended, many legions disbanded, and land distributed to veterans. Dedication of Temple of Divus Julius.

28 The Senate, its numbers already somewhat reduced by Octavian, grants him the title of Princeps Senatus. Census held by Octavian and Agrippa. Mausoleum of Augustus begun.

27 January 13, Octavian makes the gesture of returning command of the state to the Senate and the people of Rome, receiving in return vast provinces and most of the army as his own. Three days later the Senate confers on him great powers, numerous honors, and the title of Augustus

27-25 Augustus directs the final subjugation of Spain and the administrative reorganization of Spain and Gaul

23 The Senate grants Augustus the titles and powers of Imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia potestas for life, thereby turning over to him complete control of the State and ending the Roman Republic

The Late Roman Republic

Choose which paragraph to jump to and press "Go!":

The story of the late Roman republic is essentially a tragic one.
Yet the various causes for the demise of the republic are far from clear cut. One can not point to one single person or act which led to the fall.

Looking back one feels that most of all the Roman constitution was never designed with the conquest of wealthy overseas territories in mind.
With the addition of ever more provinces, especially that of Asia (Pergamene), the delicately balanced Roman political constitution began to collapse from within.

For individual politicians, especially for those with a talent for military command, the prize of power became ever more extraordinary as the empire expanded.
Meanwhile, on the streets of Rome the will of the Roman electorate was of ever greater consequence, as their favour granted a politician ever greater powers.

In turn the electorate was flagrantly bribed and cajoled by populists and demagogues who knew that, on achieving power, they could recoup any costs simply by exploiting their offices overseas.

Had in the earlier days of Cincinnatus high office been sought for status and fame within Roman society, then the latter days of the Roman republic saw commanders win vast fortunes in loot and governors make millions in perks and bribes in the provinces.

The key to such riches was the Roman electorate and the city of Rome.
Therefore who controlled the Roman mob and who held the pivotal positions of tribunes of the people was now of immense importance.

The fate of the ancient world was now decided in the miniature world of one city. Her town councillors and magistrates suddenly were of importance to Greek trade, Egyptian grain, or wars in Spain.

What had once been a political system developed to deal with a regional city state in central Italy now bore the weight of the world.

The very virtue of Roman unchanging stoicism now became Rome’s undoing. For without change a catastrophe was inevitable. Yet adaptable as the Roman mind was to matters of warfare, it was resistant to any sudden change in political rule.

So, as the Roman elite did, what it was bred to do, as they competed ruthlessly with one another for the highest positions and honours, they unwittingly tore apart the very structure they were sworn to protect.

More so, those who possessed extraordinary talents and succeeded only reaped the suspicion of their contemporaries who at once suspected their seeking the powers of tyranny.
Had previously Rome handed extraordinary commands to great talents when a crisis required it, then towards the end of the republic the senate was loath to grant anyone commissions, no matter how urgent the situation became.

Soon it therefore became a contest between those of genius and those of mediocrity, of aspiration and vested interests, between men of action and men of intransigence.

The descent was gradual, unperceivable at times. Its final acts, however, proved truly spectacular. It is little wonder that this period of Roman history has proved a rich source of material for dramatic fiction.

-

Much more material has survived regarding this period of Roman history. Hence we are provided with much greater insight of the events of this era. Thus, this text can elaborate on the problems in much greater detail.

The first fatal steps in the eventual demise of the republic can most likely be traced back to the disgraceful behaviour of Rome in the Spanish wars.
Not merely did the lengthy campaigns lead to an ever greater alienation between the citizens who supplied the soldiery for lengthy campaigns overseas and the leadership back in Rome. – It must be noted that in 151 BC citizens went as far as refusing the call up for another levy to be sent to Spain. So far had the resistance toward serving in Spain grown.

But more so, the scandalous Roman conduct in Spain most likely directly contributed to the eventual break with the nobility by the brothers Gracchus.
For it was at Numantia (153 BC) that a young tribune, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, staked his reputation on a treaty with the Spaniards in order to save the trapped army of Mancinus from certain destruction.
Once the senate dishonorably revoked this treaty, it not merely betrayed the Numantines, but so too it disgraced Tiberius Gracchus – and so set in motion a dreadful chain reaction which should play itself out over more than a century.
It is true that Scipio Aemilianus did his best to shelter his brother in law from the dishonour of the defeat at Numantia. Tiberius Gracchus could most likely have gone on to enjoy a distinguished senatorial career, following in his father’s footsteps to both the consulship and the censorship.

However, the outright betrayal by the senate evidently had some profound, lasting effect.
If we consider the Roman understanding of family honour then it is perhaps not surprising that Tiberius Gracchus took grievance at his treatment.
The faith of the Numantines had been placed in the honour of his word, due to his father’s name. Once the senate revoked the treaty it will therefore have destroyed any honour and respect the name Gracchus commanded in Spain.
Tiberius saw not merely his own person disgraced, but also the memory of his father sullied.

Tiberius Gracchus shocked the Roman system by standing not for a magistracy, but for the office of tribune of the people for 133 BC.
This was a momentous step. An outstanding member of the Roman nobles, who was clearly destined to be consul, instead was taking office as the representative of the ordinary Roman people.

Gracchus was hardly the first man of good family to seek the tribunate, but he was a man of extraordinary high standing, for whom the tribunate was never intended.

The tribunate, however, carried with it the powers of veto and to propose law. Clearly it had never been designed as an office to be held by a political heavyweight such as a Gracchus.
Nonetheless the moment Gracchus stood for the office it was clear that he was seeking to rival the consuls in their power. In doing this he was acting according to the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the Roman constitution.
This set an ominous precedent that many would follow.

But so too Tiberius Gracchus was set on a collision course with the senate. Had previously other wellborn sons aspired to the tribunate it had been in a spirit of solidarity with the ruling class. Tiberius was to change this. He was looking for a fight.
The Roman senatorial class saw its first member break ranks, albeit that this at first will not have been apparent.

For a candidate to the tribunate Tiberius Gracchus had astounding backers.
He probably had the support of Servius Sulpicius Galba, who’d been consul in 144 BC, and Appius Claudius Pulcher, ex-consul of 143 BC and the leading senator of the day (princeps senatus). Another former consul, M. Fulvius Flaccus, was also at his side. So too he enjoyed the support of the famous jurist P. Mucius Scaevola who was standing for the consulship in that very year. Further supporters were C. Porcius Cato and C. Licinius Crassus. It was a roll call of the great and the good.

More so the program of law he proposed for taking office was impressive. Most of all it hinged on his ideas for land reform.

On traveling to Spain he had observed the decline of farming in Etruria, seeing how the Italian smallholders, whom Rome depended on for her soldiery, were declining in numbers as they succumbed to the competition by the massive farms (latifundiae) of the wealthy, worked by armies of slaves.
Many of these vast farms of the rich were actually situated on public land (ager publicus), which they rented for pitifully small leases from the state, if they paid for it at all.

Gracchus made clear that public land was just that; public property. He was to attempt a redistribution of this land to the poor.
With such proposals popular support came easy. Given Gracchus’ powerful backers victory was a foregone conclusion.
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was hence elected tribune for the year 133 BC.

Gaius Gracchus had been biding his time ever since his brother’s death. He had maintained his seat on the land commission, served with Scipio Aemilianus at the siege of Numantia and served as quaestor in Sardinia in 126BC.
His power was already such that his quiet political support to the Carbo (131 BC) and Flaccus (125 BC) had meant a substantial boon for the two politicians.
His taking up the legacy of his brother was therefore seen as inevitable.

The nobles foresaw this and hence it was attempted to prosecute him on trumped up charges. Gaius easily shrugged them off. Not only was he a very astute politician, but he also possessed one of the greatest talents for oratory in Roman history.

When it become clear that Gaius was about to stand for tribune of the people in 124 BC, the senate went as far as voting for the commander of the army to remain with his forces in Sicily. With this trick they hoped to keep Gaius away, as staff officers were expected to stay with their commander.

This didn’t work, as Gaius defiantly returned home. He was called before the censors to explain himself, yet could point to 12 years of military service where only 10 were the maximum necessary.

Thus, following in his brother’s footsteps, Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune of the people for the year 123 BC on a wave of popular support.

Gaius then embarked on a program of political reform.
First he introduced a law by which no Roman citizen could be put to death without a trial.
Following the motto that all Romans were landowners of sorts by having a stake in the empire’s vast public lands, Gaius stabilized the price of grain – which fluctuated wildly – at a level more affordable to the city’s poor.
The price of corn was now fixed at 1 1/3 asses for each modius of grain.

This measure was not necessarily such a radical novelty as many would suggest. The Greek world had seen several examples of controlled grain prices. The Athenians had had controls on corn since the fifth century BC. Under the rule of the Ptolemies the city Alexandria even had minister in charge of keeping grain prices low.

To finance this policy, however, Gaius introduced a tax on the cities of Asia Minor.
Financial syndicates, from which senators were excluded, could bid for the right to levy taxes. Thus began the infamous practice of ‘tax farming’. Gaius most likely could not have foreseen the consequences of this policy. Yet the ruthless extortion of the provinces by tax farmers which followed led to the hatred of Rome in her overseas territories.

Something Gaius though must have been well aware of was the will of King Attalus who had bequeathed the territory to Rome. The free Greek cities were not to be taxed. In the uprising which had followed Rome’s inheritance some cities had lost their tax free status. Yet it appears that Gracchus law applied to all cities and therefore was in breach of Attalus’ will. This was a grave abuse of a bequeathal, but made even more noteworthy by the fact that King Attalus had been a close friend of the house of Gracchus.
Yet such was the contest between Gaius and the senate, that such considerations counted for nothing.

Trying to further erode the senate’s power and to promote the equestrians as a rival political force, Gaius also introduced a law by which only equestrians would sit on juries in trials of provincial governors charged with extortion.

This had twofold effect. Its intended effect was to clearly establish a direct form of power of the equestrians over the leading senators who invariably enjoyed governorships at some point.
But it unwittingly also created a much more sinister effect. In many cases, the provincial governors were the only protection the provinces had against the worst excesses of the tax farmers. These tax farmers in turn were of the same equestrian order which now dominated the law courts. Therefore any well-meaning governor who sought to curb the tax farmers from extorting undue amounts could find himself charged with extortion by on his return to Rome. Governors were therefore left with little other choice than to collude with the tax farmers in squeezing the provinces for all they were worth.
Any good governance of the provinces there had been, was thus being undermined by corporate greed and the threat of prosecution.

Another measure introduced by Gaius was a law by which the senate needed to specify the tasks it wished to charge the consuls with before the election took place. Thereafter it would fall to the electorate to decide whom it wished to see perform said tasks.

Gaius Gracchus had been an extraordinarily busy and energetic tribune. Yet he made it clear that he was not going to stand again for the following year (122 BC). No doubt the fate of his brother loomed large.

Yet, in a remarkable twist of fate Gaius Gracchus was elected nonetheless, without seeking another term. It seemed the people who already idolized Tiberius, were not to let his brother go so soon.

But this time the senate had manoeuvered its own champion into position to oppose their troublesome foe. Their man was Livius Drusus.

In his second year, Gracchus now took to settling people in new colonies in Italy. But more controversially he also proposed the re-settlement of Corinth and Carthage.

Meanwhile Drusus made every effort to be more populist than Gracchus, promising the people anything - and more.
He proposed no less than twelve colonies in Italy, he relieved the newly created smallholders of the rent they were obliged to pay under the Gracchan land laws.
Drusus promised the world with no intention of ever delivering.
His entire goal was to become the people’s champion in Gracchus’ stead.

The ordinary people were easily swayed. Gracchus hold on power began to crumble.

When Gaius Gracchus finally presented his new bill to the comitia tributa to bestow citizenship on the Italians (full citizenship for those with Latin rights, Latin rights to all other Italian allies), the tide had decisively turned against him.
Granting rights to other Italians had previously proved impossible, yet it may have been within the reach of someone of Gaius influence over the people to achieve this. But now with Drusus having undermined his popularity it proved too much.

The defeat of this bill proved decisive turning point.

When Gracchus himself led the effort of establishing colonists in Carthage, things turned from bad to worse in his absence from Rome.
The work surrounding the re-creation of Carthage as the colony of Junonia was very controversial. The religious omens proved thoroughly negative.
So too many people in Rome were not convinced that the once cursed city should be allowed to rise again. The ghost of Hannibal still loomed large within people’s imagination.
Gracchus was at pains to point out that he was not creating a colony within the cursed boundaries of the razed city. But rumours abounded about sacred boundary markers having been moved. On returning from Carthage Gracchus entered a very different Rome.

With stories such as these circulating it is little wonder that the thoroughly superstitious Roman people could not be brought to vote for Gracchus again.
In the summer of 122 BC elections were held for the tribunate for the next year. Gracchus failed to get elected.

No sooner had Gracchus’ term in office expired then the new consul, M. Minucius Rufus, at once proposed to revoke the act to create a colony at Carthage.

Seeing one of his policies threatened Gracchus and a large throng of supporters took to the streets to protest. In a scuffle on the Capitol, an overeager servant of the consul Lucius Opimius who went by the name of Quintus Antyllius pushed too close to Gracchus. Gracchus’ supporters feared he was to trying attack Gaius. Thus they ceased him and stabbed him to death.
Gaius Gracchus at once sought to distance himself from this killing, severely reprimanding his followers, but the damage was done.

Consul Opimius argued that this death was the first sign of a serious threat to the senate and the republic. He now proposed to the senate a new measure, that they issue a decree whereby the consuls could take any steps to protect the republic from harm. This was an entirely new idea; being a substitute for the arcane position of dictator, not used since the times of Hannibal.
The senate granted the proposal and thus issued the senatus consultum ultimum; the famous ‘last decree’.
As the other consul Quintus Fabius Maximus was in Gaul fighting the Allobroges at the time, in effect absolute power now fell to Opimius.

Gaius Gracchus and his close political ally M. Fulvius Flaccus were now summoned before the consul. But appreciating what sheer power the decree had given Opimius the two men were not minded to hand themselves over to one of their most determined enemies.
Instead they set themselves up on the Aventine with their supporters, at the Temple of Diana.

They sent the son of Fulvius to negotiate a solution with the senate. The senators were inclined to come to some sort of understanding. Yet consul Opimius rejected any talk of compromise out of hand. As he now was armed with the ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ no one could oppose him.

Opimius was bent on making an example of his opponents and set out with a force of armed men, including a unit of Cretan archers to take the Aventine by force.
The presence of these archers seems to suggest that there was more than just a little planning to Opimius’ actions.

As it was it was these professional soldiers who did the most damage. Roughly 250 men were killed in the desperate attempt to defend the Aventine against Opimius. They never stood a chance. As all was lost Gracchus was persuaded to flee.

He descended the Aventine with only a small group for company and fled across the Sublician Bridge to the far side of the river Tiber accompanied only by one slave.
His friends sought to buy him time by heroically staying behind to hold off the pursuers. One last one made his final stand on the Sublician Bridge, ironically the very bridge Horatius was said to have held the Etruscans, trying to gain Gaius whatever time possible to get away.

But hotly pursued by Opimius’ henchmen, Gaius Gracchus realized the situation was hopeless. In a sacred grove, aided by his slave, he took his own life.

That grim day Gaius Gracchus, a former tribune of the people, and Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, an ex-consul of Rome lay dead.

Worse, the body of Gracchus was decapitated and lead was poured into his skull.

Opimius’ wrath though didn’t end there. Without awaiting any further word from the senate he made widespread arrests. If there were any trials, they were a farce. Over 3,000 were executed as a result of this purge.

The memory of the Gracchi was officially damned. Cornelia, their famous mother, was even prohibited from wearing mourning garments.

The ordinary people of Rome however venerated the Gracchi for generations to come.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla was yet another nail in he coffin of the Republic, perhaps much in the same mould as Marius.
Having already been the first man to use Roman troops against Rome itself.
And much like Marius he, too, should make his mark in history with reforms as well as a reign of terror.